2. Population and Jobs Density in the Greater Golden Horseshoe

Transcription

1 Urban Density in the Greater Golden Horseshoe Population and Jobs Density in the Greater Golden Horseshoe In this section, we examine patterns of population, jobs, and household density in the GGH based on an analysis of census data. Although there are some important limitations in the census data, some of which were discussed in the previous section, it is the best data available, particularly as the census collects data periodically, on a consistent basis, for the whole region. This section covers three topics: measuring population using municipalities as the unit of analysis; measuring population and jobs using Census Tracts (CTs) and Dissemination Areas (DAs); and patterns of household size distribution. 2.1 Population Density at the Municipal Scale A key variable in any spatial analysis is the size of the unit of measurement, and the degree to which those units correspond to the phenomena being studied. The best-known area units in the region are: municipalities, of which there are 108 in the GGH; Census Tracts (CTs) of which there are 1,459 in the GGH; Dissemination Areas (DAs), of which there are 11,606 in the GGH. The GGH includes an enormous land area of about 32,000 km 2, centred on the City of Toronto, as shown in Figure 2.1. The GGH includes extensive non-urban areas, and a large area that is not divided into Census Tracts, being considered too sparsely populated to justify them. Figure 2.1 also shows the gross population density of municipal areas, as calculated by dividing the total municipal population by the total area of the municipality. The map shows Toronto to be by far the highest in municipal gross population density. This is certainly true, but the result is exaggerated by the fact that Toronto is almost fully built out, while most other municipalities include large greenfield areas. This finding illustrates a problem with measuring population density using municipalities as the area unit: there is a great variation in the proportion of the various municipalities that is urban-

2 14 Urban Density in the Greater Golden Horseshoe ized or slated for development under current planning time horizons. Comparing the gross population density of a city such as Toronto, where official plans designate over 90 percent of land in the city for development, almost all of which is already built-up, to Hamilton, where only 20 percent of the land area has been designated for development and of this only 76 percent is already built up, is clearly comparing apples and oranges. This fact is borne out by recent data prepared by MPIR defining the Existing Built-up Area (EBA) and Designated Urban Area (DUA) as of The Existing Built-up Area represents land in the GGH that was already urbanized in This includes everything from older, dense city cores, such as Toronto and Hamilton, to new subdivisions and employment areas recently built on agricultural and other previously undeveloped land. The Designated Urban Area includes this builtup land, as well as land that is not built up, but is designated for development in local municipal plans. These boundaries are useful, because they allow comparisons of population densities of the built-up areas, or Designated Urban Areas only. Figure 2.1: Municipal Population Density, Greater Golden Horseshoe GGH Municipal Population Density Density per Hectare Kilometres Lake Ontario Census Tract Boundary GGH Boundary

3 Urban Density in the Greater Golden Horseshoe 15 Table 2.1: Comparing the Designated Urban Area to the Existing Built-up Area in the Greater Golden Horseshoe Area (km 2 ) Greater Golden Horseshoe Designated Urban Area (DUA) Existing Built-up Area (EBA) % of DUA that is EBA DUA minus EBA EBA Average Population Density 32,000 km 2 4,232 km 2 2,876 km 2 _ 1,356 km people/ha Percent 100% 13% of GGH 9% of GGH 68% of DUA 32% of DUA is not built up Using the Existing Built-up Area boundary as defined by the Ministry of Public Infrastructure Renewal for 2004 matched to the census population data from 2001, the Designated Urban Area (DUA) is 13 percent of the total area of the Greater Golden Horseshoe (GGH), the Existing Built-up Area (EBA) is 9 percent of the GGH area, the percentage of DUA that is EBA is 68 percent. Meanwhile, 32 percent of the DUA is not yet built up. The average population density of all built-up areas in the GGH is 19 people/ha. There is a significant variation in the degree to which municipalities in the GGH fill out their whole municipal area. Some, such as the City of Toronto, are in effect, fully built up, and no significant amount of developable greenfield land remains within the city s boundaries. In other municipalities, particularly in suburban or exurban areas, the DUA is only a small portion of the whole municipal area, and the EBA is only a small portion of the DUA. Of course, in such cases, measuring density averaged over the whole municipal area greatly underrepresents the actual densities of built-up areas. Table 2.2 ranks all municipalities in the Greater Golden Horseshoe by the population density of the EBA, as well as the percentage of the municipal area that is DUA, the percentage that constitutes the EBA, and the percentage of the DUA that is EBA. The latter shows the degree to which the existing designated area is built up. For example, 68 percent of Guelph s DUA is EBA, meaning that 32 percent of the DUA is still greenfields. Table 2.2 includes data on EBA population density, percent DUA, percent EBA, and percent unbuilt land for all municipalities in the GGH. The density calculations depend greatly on the accuracy of the designation of the EBA, particularly in the smallest municipalities, where it may be only a few hectares. It is safe to assume that in the larger municipalities, the density calculations will be more robust. Most of the larger municipalities show EBA gross population densities of between 17 and 26 people/ha, with Toronto much denser at 45.7 people/ha. Figure 2.2 presents the data from Table 2.2 comparing population densities of the EBA in each municipality in the region, and also shows in pink the significant areas of greenfield land surrounding many municipalities. This map is a more accurate indication of densities than Figure 2.1, as we are comparing the population density of existing built-up areas only, and excluding the greatly varying greenfield areas within each municipality. Toronto is still an outlier: at 45 people/ha, it is much denser than anywhere else in the region. Toronto is followed by a second tier of large municipalities that are over the 25 people/ha threshold such as Hamilton (27), -

4 16 Urban Density in the Greater Golden Horseshoe Ajax (26.3), Newmarket (26.3), and Brampton (26). Above 20 people/ha are Kitchener (24.6), Richmond Hill (24.3), Mississauga (24.9), Burlington (23), Pickering (22.9), Oshawa (22.4), St. Catharines (22.1), Waterloo (21.1), Markham (21.1), Aurora (20.9), and Barrie (20.5). Table 2.2: Top 30 Greater Golden Horseshoe Municipalities Ranked by Total Population plus Jobs* Municipality Pop. + jobs EBA pop. + job density /ha EBA pop. density /ha EBA job density /ha % DUA % EBA % DUA that is EBA Toronto 3,809, % 92.5% 100.0% Mississauga 961, % 88.7% 94.5% Hamilton 678, % 15.8% 76.7% Brampton 447, % 46.8% 54.8% Markham 325, % 46.3% 82.9% Vaughan 294, % 46.3% 73.6% Kitchener 271, % 56.5% 68.4% Burlington 221, % 34.9% 81.5% Oakville 212, % 54.8% 67.0% Oshawa 196, % 42.4% 71.4% St. Catharines 187, % 59.3% 87.6% Richmond Hill 179, % 53.6% 77.6% Guelph 168, % 61.8% 68.8% Cambridge 166, % 49.5% 68.7% Barrie 149, % 65.5% 68.4% Waterloo 139, % 64.0% 74.8% Brantford 123, % 66.5% 72.9% Pickering 118, % 16.2% 51.7% Whitby 117, % 32.1% 67.7% Niagara Falls 113, % 23.0% 67.4% Peterborough 107, % 71.0% 70.2% Newmarket 98, % 65.7% 69.7% Ajax 96, % 41.8% 64.2% Kawartha Lakes 87, % 0.7% 48.4% Clarington 86, % 5.9% 43.29% Welland 67, % 32.6% 69.91% Caledon 67, % 2.6% 49.10% Halton Hills 62, % 7.7% 54.21% Haldimand 58, % 1.0% 45.9% Aurora 56, % 38.7% 53.7%

5 Urban Density in the Greater Golden Horseshoe 17 Figures for all GGH municipalities are shown in Appendix D It is important to remember, however, that these are population densities only, and do not include jobs. In some cities, employment areas represent a major part of the built-up area, but include almost no residential population. Mississauga is an excellent example, as it includes Pearson International Airport and nearby employment lands. If we excluded the employment areas, the population densities of Brampton and Mississauga would probably be closer. Comparing population-plus-jobs densities within built-up areas corrects this effect only slightly, as employment densities tend to be much lower than population densities. Figure 2.2: Population Density by Municipality, Greater Golden Horseshoe Built-up Area GGH Built-up Area Population Density by Municipality Density per Hectare Kilometres Lake Ontario Growth Areas Another factor that heightens the disparities between municipalities may be that different municipalities have different proportions of protected greenspace and protected environmental lands within their built-up areas. That is certainly a significant factor behind Toronto s higher densities, particularly in inner areas that have few parks and were built during an era when it was common to put watercourses into underground pipes and build over them. In today s developments, much larger areas are devoted to parks, wetlands, streams, and rivers, and other protected greenspace. Not all municipalities have the same proportion of such greenspace, however, and those with a higher share of greenspace have lower EBA population densities. Figure 2.3 shows the data from Table 2.2 of EBA population-plus-jobs densities for all municipalities in the region. Note the large gap between the density of Toronto and any other municipality. Toronto is not only the densest municipality in the region, but no other municipality even comes close. Other job-rich municipalities that appear much denser relative to the measurement

6 18 Urban Density in the Greater Golden Horseshoe of population alone are Kitchener, Hamilton, and Mississauga. When comparing to Figure 2.2, it is important to note that the density ranges are categorized differently. It would be valuable to compare population densities net of both employment lands and protected greenspace and environmental lands, but because of data limitations, such a comparison is beyond the scope of this project. Figure 2.3: Population-plus-Jobs Density by Municipality, Greater Golden Horseshoe Built-up Area GGH EBA Population + Employment Density by Municipality Kilometres Lake Ontario Density per Hectare GGH Boundary 2.2 Population Density at the Census Tract Scale Measuring population density averaged over whole municipal areas conceals considerable variation within municipal areas. This section looks at the finer scale of analysis made possible by Census Tracts (CTs). In examining population densities of CTs, it is not as important to distinguish Designated Urban Areas and Existing Built-Up Areas. CTs are already small enough that most are either wholly built up, or not built up at all. A few tracts on the urban fringe have both built-up and non-built-up areas, and low overall population densities. To get a sense of the overall distribution of CT population densities in the region, it helps to show the number of CTs in each density range as a histogram, as in Figure 2.4. Most tracts have densities of between 20 and 30 people/ha. The median is 28.6 people/ha, so half of all tracts are below that level. The number with higher densities drops sharply in density categories above 30 people/ha. Only 22 tracts (1.5 percent of all CTs) are above 200 people/ha. As almost all CTs with less than 10 people/ha are either rural, or only partly built up, well over half of existing built-up tracts in urban areas have densities between 10 and 30 people/ha.

7 Urban Density in the Greater Golden Horseshoe 19 Figure 2.4: Distribution of Population Density of Census Tracts 300 Values less than 1 and 200+ have been removed 200 N = 1459 N 200+ = 22 N less than 1 = 90 Median = 28.6 Number of Census Tracts Population Density per Hectare A different picture of population density patterns in the region emerges from an analysis of the finer grain of CTs, as shown in Maps 2.5a and b. Note that, as shown in Map 2.1, not all of the GGH is divided into CTs. This does not, however, greatly affect the analysis of population density, because all the areas without CTs are rural areas with low population densities. Map 2.5a shows all CTs in the region. The smaller municipalities farthest from Toronto, such as Barrie and Peterborough, are almost entirely within the density range of people/ha. We therefore focus on the central GGH at the larger scale, as that is where the greatest variation in population density occurs. The high-density tracts that have more than 120 people/ha are almost entirely within the City of Toronto, other than two tracts with more than 200 people/ha in Mississauga, and one of more than 120 people/ha just west of Hamilton s Central Business District. All CTs of more than 200 people/ha include significant concentrations of high-rise residential buildings, although it is possible in principle to achieve such densities with mid-rise buildings such as stacked townhouses. Note also that not all tracts with high-rise residential buildings are over the 200+ people/ha density threshold. This is commonly the result where the tract also includes significant low-density residential or employment areas. A large area in central Toronto, corresponding roughly to the urban area built-up before the Second World War, has population densities of more than 80 people/ha, the only such area in the region.

8 20 Urban Density in the Greater Golden Horseshoe Figure 2.5a: Population Density by Census Tract, Greater Golden Horseshoe GGH Population Density by Census Tract Kilometres Lake Ontario Density per Hectare Figure 2.5b: Population Density by Census Tract, Central Greater Golden Horseshoe Central GGH Population Density by Census Tract 200+ Density per Hectare Kitchener, Waterloo, Cambridge and Guelph Lake Ontario Kilometres Although we examine employment densities and combined population and employment densities in a later section, it is worth noting one point here: in the older central-city areas of Toronto, Hamilton, Kitchener-Waterloo, and others, population densities are high even in areas with many jobs, but in newer suburban areas, employment areas appear as empty spaces in the

9 Urban Density in the Greater Golden Horseshoe 21 population density maps. These are not greenfields, however, but densely built-up employment lands that have no population. All the areas that appear white in Toronto, except for the Bridle Path area, the Toronto Islands, and Rouge Park, are large-scale employment areas. This is a significant feature of urban form in the region. While older areas combine both population and jobs at high densities, newer areas tend to be either residential or employment areas, with few tracts showing both jobs and population. Very few CTs outside Toronto exceed the threshold of 80 people/ha. The most common population density in municipalities outside Toronto is 20 to 40 people/ha, with significant areas between 10 and 20 people/ha. Only a few recently developed suburban areas, such as southern Markham, have more than 40 people/ha. Figure 2.6 is a simulation of a three-dimensional view of population densities in the region, looking from the northwest towards the southeast. The whole area of CTs is shown as a base of yellow, while higher densities are graduated towards red shades with higher densities appearing taller. Figure 2.6: Three-dimensional View of Population Density by Census Tract Showing population densities as a 3D projection has both advantages and disadvantages. The main advantage is that the 3D representation is intuitively understandable for most people, and some features are easier to see, such as the relative sizes of the clusters centred on Toronto, Hamilton, and Oshawa. Also, more information is provided on the high-density tracts, since in Figure 2.5a, the black tone indicates merely over 200. In Figure 2.6, we can see that some tracts that have more than 200 people/ha, such as those near Scarborough Town Centre and Mississauga Town Centre, are denser than others.

10 22 Urban Density in the Greater Golden Horseshoe The main disadvantage with the 3D projection is that some tracts unavoidably hide others, so it is hard to make any detailed examination of the patterns in central Toronto. It is also easy to mistake the map as a representation of built form, with lots of tall towers, instead of an abstract projection of CT population densities. Perhaps the most striking impression created by the map is that the Toronto area appears to be a compact, relatively contained cluster. This is certainly partly a result of the exaggerated heights of the red columns. Although the Toronto region and its nearby suburbs have been built in a relatively contiguous pattern, most of the suburban areas have been built at fairly low densities, as shown in Figure 2.5b. 2.3 Employment Density at the Census Tract Scale Patterns of employment density are quite different from population density. The main difference is that there are far fewer CTs with high employment densities than CTs with high population densities. The distribution of employment densities is clear from the histogram shown as Figure 2.7. Twothirds of all CTs (66 percent) have less than 10 jobs/ha. This is primarily a result of postwar planning policies, which separated employment areas and residential areas. Most of the very low-employment-density tracts are residential areas where most employment land uses are 500 Figure 2.7: Distribution of Job Density of Census Tracts 0 s and 100+ job densities have been filtered out 400 Number of Census Tracts Jobs Density per Hectare

11 Urban Density in the Greater Golden Horseshoe 23 prohibited. Many CTs thus have either no employment at all, or employment only in primary schools or small neighbourhood retail centres. Also, Statistics Canada has tended to draw CT boundaries differently for employment areas compared with residential areas; the tracts that represent employment areas are usually much larger than those for residential areas. Therefore, some small areas of high-density jobs within large tracts may exist, but can be obscured by surrounding low-density employment uses. One should be cautious about interpreting census data on employment, because these data are based on a 20 percent sample, and therefore not as accurate as the population numbers, which approach 100 percent coverage. Even taking those qualifications into account, however, densities in employment areas are much lower, with only 6 percent of all CTs over 40 jobs/ha, and only 2 percent over 100 jobs/ha. It would be valuable to examine employment densities within primarily employment areas separately, but there is no reliable method of distinguishing primarily employment CTs from primarily residential CTs, particularly as many older employment areas are mixed-use districts in which much land is occupied by housing. An analysis of employment density at the scale of either census DAs, or even individual land parcels, would provide a more detailed picture of employment patterns in the region, but neither land use data nor employment data are currently available at finer scales. Employment densities have a different pattern from population densities, as shown in Figure 2.8. The only major concentration of high-density employment is in the City of Toronto, with the Central Business District around King and Bay streets representing the only significant concen- Figure 2.8: Employment Density by Census Tract, Central Greater Golden Horseshoe Central GGH Employment Density by Census Tract Density per Hectare Kitchener, Waterloo, Cambridge and Guelph Lake Ontario Kilometres

12 24 Urban Density in the Greater Golden Horseshoe tration of high-density jobs in the region. Other, much smaller, areas of high-density employment exist at Yonge and Eglinton, North York Centre, downtown Hamilton, downtown Kitchener, and the intersection of Highways 407 and 404. Virtually everywhere else, employment densities are much lower, seldom exceeding 40 jobs/ha. Most of the tracts that are exclusively in employment use are between 20 and 40 jobs/ha, except for the vast Pearson Airport site, which has lower densities because of the extensive area of runways. Many of the areas that show densities of 10 to 20 jobs/ha are tracts that include both employment and residential uses. Because of land use segregation, suburban employment densities are something of a reverse-image of residential densities where one is high, the other is low. This is not true in central Toronto, where high employment densities co-exist with high population densities. Another way of representing employment density by CT, Figure 2.9 shows a 3D projection of employment densities in the region. The high-density jobs cluster at King and Bay clearly dominates as the only such cluster in the region, and dwarfs any other downtown. The Yonge- Eglinton cluster is also visible, as is a larger cluster in North York. Hamilton and Kitchener- Waterloo each has a small cluster of higher-density employment downtown. Other downtowns are also visible, but much smaller. Elsewhere, relatively low job densities predominate. Figure 2.9: Three-dimensional Projection of Employment Density by Census Tract